That's fair. Thank you for acknowledging that.
I think this remains a question on our side—one we would like to see answered.
The report, in itself, as acknowledged by the government.... They don't see a need for a secondary report. The report could add a plain-language definition of “CPP sustainability”. We think that would be an important factor, if we're not proceeding with a secondary report, as recommended. As well, we think it could add whether projected benefits can be paid in full under the current legislation, if necessary, and the differences among cash flow deficits, benefits exceeding contributions and actuarial insolvency. Understand, we're not criticizing the report to say that due diligence wasn't done, but we feel that explanations for Canadians in plain language of what these terns mean are lacking in the report as it currently exists.
The report notes that “Contributions are expected...to be lower than expenditures” beginning in 2027, but that does not mean the CPP is in trouble, because investment earnings fund a large share of the benefits. Many Canadians, I feel—